A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

Not to me He doesn't. Haven't we been through this before?

You admit that you're marketing a belief. I'm not buying it because I don't believe a real God would hide. I refuse to accept your excuse that your God is hiding. If He came out of hiding I would not refuse Him. I've told you more than once before, belief and evidence are not related. if there is evidence, you don't need belief. If there is no evidence, you're allowed to believe but one belief is as good as another. I've seen the "results" too and many of them are bad.

I dunno, but it's still the difference between my relationship with God and your relationship with long John Silver.

You claim that God responds to you. If I claimed that Long John Silver responds to me, people would call me crazy. So why shouldn't we call you equally crazy?

We know that Long John Silver is a fictional character and a lot of people talk about their relationship with God.But you can still call me crazy if you want to.

We also know that (your) God is a fictional character. Just ask a billion Muslims. A lot of people have a "personal relationship" with their favourite soap opera too. I'm just saying you're not fundamentally different from me.

After all, if you found no evidence, there is no reason to believe that any other human could possibly find any. As for the billion Muslims, their contention is with the prophets, not the Deity itself. I agree with jar who claims that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism worship the same God.

They'd all agree with me that God exists and you're wrong so that's a billion in my favor I don't doubt that (my) God is "inaccurate", I just doubt that He's fictional. Well you're obviously crazy But maybe I am too And I was gonna say that maybe your relationship with LJS is on par with mine with God, I dunno what you're doing up there all by yourself, but it's whatever. I don't think I'm very right, I just know it's not fake.

Interesting. Do you believe that the basis for your belief is something that would stand up to the scrutiny of a scientific investigation?If not, then why shouldn't that affect your opinion of the beliefs of others regarding say the Flood.

I think the results would be inconclusive, but I'm gonna say "no" here - depending on what you mean by standing up to it. I mean, we'd be dealing with emotions and feelings n'stuff, so I'm not sure how much scientific scrutiny we're going to achieve.If you're asking about any kind of, say, "success" in that endeavor, then I can more easily so that I don't think that's going to happen. My belief in God is based on direct experience. Nobody here today saw the Flood.Also, we know for a fact that the entire planet has not been covered in water since humans have been here - so regardless of the basis for their belief I already know they're wrong.

Correct. Evidence is evident. Some Muslims, Christians and Jews would agree. Some wouldn't.What about the Egyptian gods or the Greek gods or the Hindu gods or the Norse gods? Don't you consider them fictional characters?

No, that doesn't count. That's like saying Long John Silver is the equivalent of Holden Caulfield. I might agree that they exist on the same level but I can still like one more than the other.

No, it's like saying the movie version of Long John Silver is better than the book one. I'm saying a billion muslims would agree with me that God exists - that their concept of god differs some from mine doesn't make mine a fictional character.

Well, the Robert Newton version is better than the Wallace Beery version or the Eddie Izzard version. (I haven't seen the Charlton Heston version). The book is better than most of them.But we're comparing one fictional character with another, not one denomination of fans with another. And I'm saying that existence is not the salient factor. Even a god that "exists" might be a false god. False and fictional are closely related.

A lot depends on how an issue or belief is framed.As an example, in my life I have at one or more times had direct experiences perceiving unexplained events. I can't say to the audience that such events were objective proof...since nobody saw or heard what I saw and heard. (as well as two other witnesses) I will mention that these events are necessarily subjective. My perception is the only thing we have to go on. Two others saw essentially the same thing and heard it and none of us were under the influence of any controlled substance. Confirmation bias may well fill in the blanks...as I believe that there is One Spirit and a host of wannabe imitators. Thus in my mind, a voice...feeling...or even observation can be subjectively said to "exist" and yet confirming my belief that it is a false god. A demon. You may choose to frame such an issue as unexplained fiction. I cant control how you frame such descriptions, but I can tell the story of my perceptions. How I wish I would have had an audio recorder! Such sounds would of course still be rightly questioned, however. People can and do. Granted I have a measure of respect within my community due to my reputation for questioning things that most believers won't even touch. Also, I will admit that believers usually believe me while atheists/skeptics are usually skeptical towards me. We still get along, though! Which is a valid question. And I feel the same way about my experience standing up to scrutiny. I have to admit that my experience is unevidenced...apart from two friends who to this day could tell the story the same as I tell it...from their own eyewitness experience. In other words, we did not make it up. Soe of the stories and legends are characters in a book...much as Long John Silver. Nothing more. Others are demons. Yes thats entirely my subjective opinion. In my mind, I have a high degree of confidance that none of them are the Real Slim Shady.